News.Life

House Passes Bill Limiting Judges' Power to Issue Nationwide Injunctions

DIWIDA.NEWS courts, judiciaries, politics, politics and government, politics and law

<img data-document-id="cms/api/amp/video/AA1CDtOr" data-reference="video"/>

 On Wednesday, the House approved a legislation aimed at limiting district court judges' authority to issue nationwide injunctions, which could significantly reduce the judiciary's capacity to halt President Trump’s policies.


 Referred to as the No Rogue Rulings Act, this bill introduced by Representative Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) aims to restrict judges from offering remedies exclusively to those who are directly affected by the lawsuit.


 The legislation was approved with a 219-213 vote.


 It would
 bar district court judges
 By prohibiting nationwide injunctions, even when issues have national implications — underming many lawsuits contesting Trump’s orders.


 "Following President Trump's return to office, progressive activists have teamed up with sympathetic judges whom they've specifically approached to hear their cases and leverage nationwide injunctions to block numerous legitimate executive measures and programs," stated Issa.


 These broad court orders exemplify judicial overreach at its most extreme.


 For Democrats, though, a series of recent courtroom defeats for Trump indicates not errant judges but instead the unlawful nature of his conduct.


 "My counterparts from the opposing side aim to convince you that these nationwide court orders halting President Donald Trump’s unlawful and unconstitutional acts are unjust," stated Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).


 Here’s what needs to be understood: If you dislike these prohibitions, refrain from engaging in unlawful and unconstitutional activities. It really is that straightforward.


 Both sides have proposed legislation aimed at limiting nationwide injunctions, however, it has been primarily driven by Republicans.
 picked up the mantle
 This year, following a temporary injunction issued by U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, the Trump administration was prevented from deporting Venezuelans to an El Salvadoran prison using the Alien Enemies Act.


 Trump has demanded the judge's removal through impeachment, whereas other Republican figures have criticized how a single judge can impede the implementation of a White House policy nationwide.


 However, Democrats contend that the injunctions appropriately shield people nationwide from harm, even if these individuals are not direct parties to the litigation.


 Numerous individuals have pointed out Trump’s directive aimed at preventing birthright citizenship for people whose parents are not citizens. Both Democratic- and Republican-appointed judges invalidated this order, ruling that it contravenes the Constitution’s provision granting citizenship to anyone born within the country’s borders.


 Democrats contend that it doesn't make sense for the parents of every single child to have to file separate lawsuits.


 "nationwide injunctions serve a crucial function in safeguarding our democracy and ensuring accountability among the political branches. These measures prevent harm to millions of individuals who might otherwise suffer from unlawful or unconstitutional governmental actions," stated jayapal.


 Over the past 25 years, judges have progressively handed down nationwide injunctions more frequently, a development that has been met with increasing examination of their validity.


 According to an analysis published in The New York Times, six nationwide injunctions were issued during President George W. Bush’s administration.
 Harvard Law Review
 The figure increased twofold to 12 under the Obama administration prior to surging dramatically to 64 during President Trump's initial term.


 In the Biden administration, the total count of nationwide injunctions dropped to 14, which was exceeded within just a few weeks during the second Trump administration.


 "Judges are claiming this authority unilaterally, which constitutes a blatant misuse of public confidence and judicial power, thus opening up a Pandora’s box that jeopardizes the constitutional framework," stated Representative Tom McClintock (R-Calif).


 The Congress is elected to create laws. The President is elected to implement them. The judiciary is designated solely to resolve disputes and legal issues presented to it by individuals who have been harmed.


 However, Democrats argue that Trump — who has already enacted over 100 executive orders during his second term — has significantly outpaced his predecessors in attempting to mold policies via executive actions that extend beyond his authority and formulating unlawful policies.


 "Federal judges have handed down at least 68 court injunctions halting or delaying the administration’s unlawful activities to stop irreversible damage within the nation due to their unconstitutional acts. These judges were appointed by five distinct presidents—both Democrats and Republicans," stated Representative Jamie Raskin (Md.), who leads the House Judiciary Committee as its senior Democrat.


 Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa has proposed an analogous bill in the Senate aimed at restricting judicial decisions to only those individuals who are part of the specific case. Nevertheless, it remains uncertain as to when this legislative measure could move forward.


 Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This content must not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


 To get the most recent updates on news, weather, sports, and live videos, visit ConchoValleyHomepage.com.

House Passes Bill Limiting Judges' Power to Issue Nationwide Injunctions

On Wednesday, the House approved a legislation aimed at limiting district court judges' authority to issue nationwide injunctions, wh...

Committee Urges Aspirants: Apply Within 10 Days for Service on Two Transitional Justice Commissions – International Edition (English)

DIWIDA.NEWS judiciaries, laws and regulations, politics, politics and law, rules and regulations

Kathmandu, April 10 -- The panel responsible for selecting leaders for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons has invited applications from candidates interested in these roles.


 Individuals interested in serving as chairpersons or members of the commissions have until next Friday to submit their applications, beginning this Thursday. The selection committee has outlined three methods for applying. Candidates may individually apply for either role, whereas various human rights and victim organizations can provide endorsements at an institutional level. However, these organizations must include proof of consent from each candidate they recommend.


 Likewise, the recommendation committee has the option to identify candidates independently. This process allows for organizational nominations alongside the committee’s direct selection, which helps address concerns that well-known individuals may be reluctant to apply for roles within the commissions.


 According to the Enforced Disappearance Inquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, individuals such as former Supreme Court and High Court justices, ex-secretary-level civil servants, or those deemed suitable for elevation to the position of chief judge can qualify for the role of chairman of these commissions. For membership positions, candidates must possess a master’s degree, refrain from being affiliated with any political parties when applying, and demonstrate contributions to fields like human rights, peacebuilding, or legal practice.


 “We opted to name the applications once we finalized the operational process, including the input from feedback,” stated Lily Thapa, a commission spokesperson and also a member of the National Human Rights Commission. “We will engage with relevant parties until the submission period for the applications concludes.”


 The committee headed by ex-chief justice Om Prakash Mishra has called upon insurgency-period victims and representatives from civil society to provide input on the selection procedure on Friday.


 The committee headed by Mishra was established by the KP Sharma Oli administration on March 24, following consultations with Pushpa Kamal Dahal, the chairman of CPN (Maoist Centre), who is also the head of the principal opposition party in the House of Representatives. This newly appointed committee kept the same coordinator and three members as the earlier panel, despite the latter’s failure to complete its tasks within a two-month timeframe.


 Nonetheless, the commission is now represented by Commissioner Thapa. Previously, Commissioner Manoj Duwady was responsible for representing the commission. The committee must complete its task by May 23rd.


 Following an assessment of the applicants' CVs, the committee plans to release a condensed list of contenders.


 The candidates who are selected will undergo interviews and must deliver presentations. Ultimately, two chairs and eight members will be proposed for appointment, with the final decisions resting with the Cabinet. These newly formed groups will have a four-year period to conduct investigations, uncover the truth, suggest reparations, and propose prosecutions.


 For the second time within three months, the committee headed by Mishra is tasked with selecting the officers for both the truth commission and the disappearance inquiry body.


 Following extensive discussions between key political factions, the federal parliament revised the Enforced Disappearance Inquiry Act in August 2024, over nine years since the Supreme Court rejected several amnesty clauses within it. Two months later, on October 18, the administration established a five-person committee led by Mishra to propose candidates for the positions of two chairpersons and eight members across both commissions.


 Earlier, the panel led by Mishra was unable to complete its task by the set deadline due to significant disagreements among its members regarding the names involved. Its term concluded in mid-December of last year.


 Since July 2022, both committees have been dormant as the administration chose to prolong their mandates but did not retain their original leaders and participants.


 Established in February 2015 with the aim of probing wartime offenses, the truth commission has processed 63,718 grievances so far. Likewise, the disappearance commission is handling approximately 2,500 cases to uncover information about individuals who were forcefully vanished by both Maoist groups and state military units during those times.

Committee Urges Aspirants: Apply Within 10 Days for Service on Two Transitional Justice Commissions – International Edition (English)

Kathmandu, April 10 -- The panel responsible for selecting leaders for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Commission of Inves...

Raphael Tuju Urges Supreme Court Silence After Alleging Sub Judice Rule Violation

DIWIDA.NEWS judiciaries, news, politics, politics and government, politics and law

<ul>
 <li>
 
 Raphael Tuju, who previously served as the secretary general of the Jubilee Party, now criticizes the Judiciary for attempting to silence him in a major property dispute involving billions of shillings.
 
 </li>
 <li>
 
 The Judiciary charged Tuju with violating the sub judice rule by taking the case to the media for prosecution.
 
 </li>
 <li>
 
 Nevertheless, Tuju in his strongly worded letter sent also to Chief Justice Martha Koome, stated that the Judiciary's statement was intended to keep the issue hidden from the public.
 
 </li>
</ul>

 Former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju has addressed a statement released by the Judiciary and East African Development Bank, following their accusation that he made public comments about issues currently before the courts.

<img data-document-id="cms/api/amp/image/AA1BN6l3" data-reference="image" src="https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1BN6l3.jpg"/>

 In a brief statement, Tuju redirected the criticism towards the Supreme Court judges, alleging that they established a precedent by addressing issues currently pending in court.

<blockquote>
 “If I’m being held responsible for breaching the sub judice rule, I’d gladly stand alongside the Supreme Court judges who initially broke this rule. Since lodging the complaint against those SCOK judges with the JSC back in April, I’ve kept quiet. Only when these judges made public comments on the issue did I choose to exercise my right to reply,” he said.
</blockquote>

 He criticized the judicial system for not tackling the conduct of two Supreme Court justices who allegedly first brought these issues into the spotlight, both during court proceedings and via public talks they conducted in Meru and various other places, events that received extensive coverage from the press.


 Tuju similarly placed both the Judiciary and the bank under scrutiny for supposedly attempting to prevent the media from covering the matter.

<blockquote>
 I doubt you'll manage to silence the press on issues that have already reached the courtroom. Don’t even consider trying to scare me. Since 2019, EADB has received positive coverage from the media. The organization hired an expensive public relations company based in Nairobi to promote their viewpoint consistently, frequently securing prominent placement for these stories.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
 What has changed? Now they are voicing complaints. As a law-abiding citizen of Kenya, I must adhere to the law," he stated.
</blockquote>

 Tuju is anticipated to appear at the Milimani Law Courts on Friday morning, March 28, for the hearing of a case related to petitions contesting the dismissal of Supreme Court judges.


 Today, the Judiciary, represented by Paul Ndemo, released a statement condemning Tuju for reportedly commenting on the details of a case he is involved in regarding a legal conflict over his property valued at KSh 5 billion in Karen following a failed loan transaction.

<blockquote>
 "The Judiciary has acknowledged recent media interviews and public comments from Hon. Raphael Tuju concerning the legal proceedings related to Dari Limited. The dispute between Dari Limited and the East African Development Bank (EADB) has been under judicial review across various courts and regions," as stated by the Judiciary.
</blockquote>

 Earlier, Tuju claimed that high-ranking judicial authorities conspired with an EADB official to falsely implicate him in the case.


 He revealed that he had lodged complaints with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) against five Supreme Court judges who had backed Okwara's affidavits, subsequently found to be false. The JSC is scheduled to examine these accusations against the judges.


 In July 2020, Tuju spent KSh 50 million to protect his prized Karen property from being sold off at an auction by EADB.


 The lender took legal action in a London courtroom and secured rulings to seize the assets after Tuju and his firm, Dari Limited, were deemed to be in default of their loan obligations.


 Despite this, the previous CS challenged the decision in a Kenyan courtroom and managed to secure an injunction stopping the lender and designated receivers from seizing the asset.